Threat charts

So, i've been doing some work the last couple of evenings. My intention was to make quick-reference threat charts. Now there is already some threat guides around, including Paulrkii's; http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=77053&highlight=paulrkii ; MadTommy's; http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=68182 and also kind of what I had in mind; Threat chart by PlainSight (same link).

However, I wanted to create one of my one with the following objectives:

1. A condensed chart, maximum 2 pages, for convenience of quick reference in stressful situations.

2. Slick looking, so to fit nicely to my printed document folder.

3. Easy on the eyes, easy to read, but must still contain enough information for any situation.

4. Numbers presented in different units.

5. Include the CMS instructions from Paulrkii's guide. (link above).

6. Reliable numbers.

Now, allow me to elaborate on that final point: While reviewing the above mentioned guides; the in-game encyclopedia; ME graphically represented data and also in-game testing, I have not found all numbers to match up. That was expected. But for my needs, I wanted numbers that I could trust. So in order to settle disputing numbers, I have applied the following logic:

1. Real-world numbers are not relevant, and was not considered for these charts.

2. When numbers differ by a small amount, I have selected the larger one. (Better to think you're unsafe when you're safe, than safe when you're unsafe:)

3. When numbers differ by a big amount, the ME-data alongside in-game confirmation was considered to be the most relevant.

4. When a number was to ambiguous, it was left out. (please do help if anyone can shed some light on the missing values :helpsmilie: )

In the end, I'm satisfied with the preliminary result, and have learned a lot, and now I wanted to share with you guys (and girls?) for peer review :smartass:. I welcome criticism and opposing opinions and I will follow up any inconsistencies that may arise. I do however ask that any number-disputing is accompanied by reference, ie from the ME, from another guide or the like... (No real world numbers, as they are not the objective of these charts)...

Puh! So here it is: (v1.1) Threat charts v1.1 by Inseckt.pdf

Edit: added xls version by request (download, then manually change file extension from txt to xls): Threat charts v1.1 by Inseckt.txt

I find the acronyms pretty confusing... they would require one to get used to...

Aquisition is actually "Acquisition"...

SARH is actually Semi-active radar homing - don't know for autonomous...

I suggest:

RSR: Radar Search Range = RDR

RTR: Radar Tracking Range = TRK

TAR: Target Aqusition Range = ACQ (acquisition)

MEA: Maximum Engagement Altitude = ALT

MER: Maximum Engagement Range = RNG

MPL: Missiles Per Launcher = MSL

All acronyms checked on http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/

Btw. good work... :thumbup:

Good job, Thanks :)

Aries; I agree. I have made a new version true to your suggestions, looks more convincing:)

Thank you for the contribution!

First post updated. v1.1

Nice one-thanks.

Thanks for the charts.

By the way, while searching for SAM related material I happened to find this thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=75960&highlight=sam+simulator

I haven't installed the SAM Sim, but I downloaded the documentation/manuals rar package. Really astonishing material and lotsa nice pictures. You'd better check it out. Direct download link:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/k91l5aq7gf1hfbf/SAM_Sim_docs_110628.rar

Are you sure about the maximum altitude ranges on some of those systems?

Are you sure about the maximum altitude ranges on some of those systems?

The altitude numbers are directly taken from plainsight's A5 threat guide, and I have personally tested those that stated below 35 000 ft, and they seemed to be correct, so by inference, I assumed the other ones to be correct as well. Must wait for DCS:Fighter to test the rest :smilewink: . You might ask if to simply fly over is a valid test, but at least it confirms that the number is not wildly wrong:) The rest is up for dispute...

Ok, just making sure. Iv flown some missions where the Altitudes are much lower for maximum engagement, but perhaps the situation was different.

hm, perhaps. The thing is; its difficult to test to confirm. If you fly at altitude above the sam, then while circling, descend until it fires, how do you know if that was max range? or if it just waited to you were well in to fire?

Its hard to pin down, but at least the numbers isn't to small then? (which would be worse).

In tacview, firing range is presented with a dome, but I think its only a simple fixed radius dome, which wont help.

BTW; how were the altitudes much lower? Do you mean from the briefing, the ME, or just that they didn't fire when you were at this and that altitude? Stock mission? user mission? etc... I am prepared to investigate inconsistencies:)

Haha, well for one, the Strelas and Tunguskas in operation pilot search was at a maximum engagement altitude of 12 thousand something feet in the description. However, while on the mission, we found that flying just above 15,000 feet, was enough to avoid detection altogether. However, once a mate of mine dropped to exactly 15,000 and he got engaged right away, not sure if by Tunguska or Strela, however both seem to exhibit similar characteristics. I have tested flying low for most SAMS, and I cannot avoid radar detection at all, no matter if I'm licking the floor or not. The only thing that saves me is masked terrain, which I rely upon anyway.

PS: Nothing beats flying at over angels 20 with the wind blowing through the canopy and dropping laser guided bombs like Santa dropping presents down chimneys.

Ihave found the shipboard Tors (SA15) on the rooskie DD and frigate fire very consistantly at 14.8 miles at anything below (at least) 14000'....buggers don't miss either when they fire 4 at once